Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Domestic Abuse, § 813.12(1) — “Household Member”
Annette Petrowsky v. Brad Krause, 223 Wis. 2d 32, 588 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998) For Krause: Russell D. Bohach For Petrowsky: Thomas McAdams, Pro Bono Project Issue/Holding: The issue on appeal is who constitutes a “household member” under the domestic abuse statute. This involves the construction of a statute. Interpretation of a statute is […]
Gambling, § 945.03(5) — Constitutionality — Vagueness Challenge
State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998) For Hahn: Bruce Elbert Issue/Holding: The meaning of “gambling machine” is sufficiently well-understood as to survive a vagueness challenge. (The court reserves whether “contrivance” might be vague when applied to facts not raised by this case.)
Gambling, § 945.03(5) — Sufficiency of Evidence — Expert Testimony Unnecessary
State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998) For Hahn: Bruce Elbert Issue/Holding: We reject Hahn’s argument that expert testimony was necessary to establish that these video poker machines were gambling machines. Although Hahn refers to cases from other jurisdictions in which technical aspects of the machines’ functions […]
§ 902.01(2), Judicial Notice — Reliance on, Ruling to Admit Evidence
State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998) For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A trial court sitting as fact-finder6 may derive inferences from the testimony and take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute,7 but it may not establish […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – “Profile Character” (Richard A.P.) Evidence (Absence of Sex Offender Characteristics)
State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998) For Richard: Robert Henak Holding: The trial court reversibly erred in refusing to allow an expert psychologist to testify that defendant “did not show any evidence of any diagnosable sexual disorder. … [and] that absent a diagnosable disorder, it is unlikely that […]
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Prosecutor — Revocation of Probation for Failure to Admit Offense After Alford Plea
State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 211 Wis. 2d 708, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997) State v. Phillip I. Warren, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), on certification For Warren: Ralph A. Kalal. Issue: Whether “the State […]
Impeachment — Witness’s Mental Condition
State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998). For Richard: Robert Henak. Issue/Holding: Diagnosis of multiple personality disorder, to impeach witness: evidence of mental impairment does not, without more, affect witness’s credibility. Without evidence that this condition affected the witness’s recall ability, it is irrelevant.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Collateral & Direct Consequences – Alford plea – probation condition requiring admission of guilt
State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz 211 Wis. 2d 708, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997). State v. Phillip I. Warren, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), on certification For Warren: Ralph A. Kalal Issue: “(W)hether the circuit […]
Hearsay — Statement — Truth of Matter Asserted — Probative Value
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998) For Sveum: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Where the defendant sought admissibility of a statement by a non-testifying declarant on the basis that it was not offered for its truthfulness, but the statement would have probative value only if offered for […]
Foundation — Videotape — Same Requirement as Still Photo — Expert Unnecessary
State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998) For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The State provides no authority to support the trial court’s imposition of a requirement that, as a matter of law, expert testimony is necessary to establish a foundation for video images, […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.